911 tech that locates cell phone users in buildings ready to go

The Federal Communications Commission today authorized the maker of an enhanced 911 technology to begin commercial operations despite claims that the system will interfere with wireless Internet Service Providers and smart grid applications.

A company called NextNav and its subsidiary, Progeny, makes a system designed to more accurately locate people inside buildings. This is important because the trend of cell phones replacing landlines makes it more difficult to identify the location of a person calling 911. If someone had a heart attack on the 30th floor of a giant building and is able to call 911 but not speak their location, NextNav's system would theoretically find them with a network of transmitters placed throughout cities and towns. Cell phones would also require software upgrades to communicate with the NextNav network.

The proposal was controversial because NextNav's enhanced 911 location service operates on the same chunk of spectrum as wireless Internet Service Providers, smart meters, toll readers like EZ-Pass, baby monitors, and more. In March, we detailed the proposal and concerns raised by makers of systems who believe NextNav technology will cause too much interference in this band, stretching from 902-928MHz.

Extensive testing showed that there was interference, but the FCC had not defined what an "unacceptable" level of interference would be. Despite approving NextNav's proposal, the FCC once again declined to define unacceptable interference, saying "no uniform field testing method is appropriate considering the great array of devices that the Part 15 industry deploys in the 902-928 MHz, which are designed to address different needs and thus have no common design."

Part 15 refers to FCC rules regarding unlicensed wireless transmissions. NextNav is a licensed service, but would co-exist with unlicensed ones in the 902-928MHz band.

The FCC further stated that "[w]e recognize that the potential exists for interference to certain devices or systems, but also are cognizant that the potential for interference to these devices already exists because a variety of different users operate in this spectrum. Based on the evidence before us, we find that the potential for increased interference within the 902-928 MHz band that could result from commercial operation of Progeny’s M-LMS (Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service) system will not create a significant detrimental effect overall on unlicensed operations in the band, and that the band therefore can continue to be used for such unlicensed operations consistent with their Part 15 status. We therefore conclude that Progeny has satisfied the field test requirement so that it may commence commercial operations."

The FCC didn't impose any limitations on NextNav's operations but said it has to keep track of interference concerns and report back to the FCC. NextNav must establish a website and toll-free help desk to let users of unlicensed devices "seek assistance in investigating and mitigating potential interference issues." NextNav must also file three reports with the FCC from December 2013 to December 2014 detailing any interference complaints received.

Ya, when my sister buys a baby monitor and she gets interference, she'll know to call the FCC's 1-800 hotline number? I think she'll just take it back to Costco and tell them it doesn't work. Or she'll throw it out thinking it broke.

Ya, when my sister buys a baby monitor and she gets interference, she'll know to call the FCC's 1-800 hotline number? I think she'll just take it back to Costco and tell them it doesn't work. Or she'll throw it out thinking it broke.

This. RF interference problems are one of the most diabolical to pinpoint and solve in all of electronics. A consumer would just assume the device broke.

Ya, when my sister buys a baby monitor and she gets interference, she'll know to call the FCC's 1-800 hotline number? I think she'll just take it back to Costco and tell them it doesn't work. Or she'll throw it out thinking it broke.

The irony of your post is that baby monitors are notorious for causing interference. She's more likely to call her WISP and complain "I GOT NO INTERWEBS!" first.

I dont understand why these people couldn't be give a licensed band of spectrum. Why did they have to stomp all over the 900 Mhz band? This is ridiculous, if they stomped on the Cellular band the telco's would be up and arms and the FCC would say no.

this also seems to be solution looking for a problem to solve. But because it is "public safety" no one looks at the data and really ask do we need this? How many people call 911 (alone) in an empty high rise location that is not their own apartment? seriously GPS is not good enough? We cant put GPS repeaters in these buildings? No one is asking the question, how can we solve this problem without compromising the integrity of the spectrum.

How many people call 911 (alone) in an empty high rise location that is not their own apartment? seriously GPS is not good enough? We cant put GPS repeaters in these buildings? No one is asking the question, how can we solve this problem without compromising the integrity of the spectrum.

A GPS repeater doesn't exist because said device would give the location of the *repeater*. Since GPS info is based on the device that can see the satellite. Basically, every call would come from the exact position of the device with the tolerance so wide for some buildings that you would see the location potentially as in the next building over. Yes, very useful.

Also, it's not the empty 30 story tower but the full one that matters. How is anyone supposed to know what unit a cell number goes to, especially with how often some people change numbers? That's before all the prepaid lines which don't have any sort of account info, assuming it was free to access by first responders, which I don't believe is true.

But because it is "public safety" no one looks at the data and really ask do we need this?

Being a Paramedic in one of the nations largest metropolitan areas for over 12 years i can say unequivocally, astoundingly and absolutely YES!

Quote:

How many people call 911 (alone) in an empty high rise location that is not their own apartment? seriously GPS is not good enough? We cant put GPS repeaters in these buildings?

People calling from locations thats not their own doesn't matter, people use different addresses for all sorts of reasons, people calling from an empty 30 story high rise apartment, not common. people calling from a 2 or 3 story apartment building, dozens of time, daily. as a matter of fact its almost a daily occurrence that we have to waste precious minutes having our dispatchers locate family members or known associates of a caller and contact them to get better / updated location information for a caller because they are in peril and we cant locate them within a complex and the caller is in a life threatening situation.

A specific situation that took place not too long ago, we had a 4 year old call 911 on moms cell phone from inside their apartment because mom was unresponsive from diabetic emergency. The address on the cell phone was a different location and the only details the caller could give us was that they lived upstairs and that he could see the swimming pool out the window. This was a 4 story apartment complex with over 20 building and over 2000 units with 4 swimming pools. An additional 5 engine companies and 10 police officers were dispatched to assist in the search of the complex. In the end the way we located the women was our keen thinking call taker / dispatcher talked the young child in to taking a blow up turtle floaty toy that they had for swimming and placing it in the hallway in front of the door of their apartment. Once the child placed the toy outside the door, the apartment was located within minutes and mom was able to receive the life saving treatment she so desperately needed. her blood sugar was 13, normal is 80 to 100, below 40+/- you cannot maintain consciousness. She in a state where irreversible damage would start to occur if it hadn't already. Fortunately for her she had a very brave and very smart 4 year old who saved her life that day. I was the paramedic who started the IV on her and administered D50 to raise her blood sugar. She brought her child to our station about a month later to meet all of us and to say thank you.

This is just one situation that took place. I could type a book of situations that i have first hand knowledge of and was involved in where better tracking / location information would have greatly reduced our patient contact time. Not all of these situations have a happy ending. In reality happy endings are the exception not the norm.

So speaking as an emergency responder who just happens to know a little about technology, I can say yes this is very much needed.

But because it is "public safety" no one looks at the data and really ask do we need this?

Being a Paramedic in one of the nations largest metropolitan areas for over 12 years i can say unequivocally, astoundingly and absolutely YES!

Quote:

How many people call 911 (alone) in an empty high rise location that is not their own apartment? seriously GPS is not good enough? We cant put GPS repeaters in these buildings?

People calling from locations thats not their own doesn't matter, people use different addresses for all sorts of reasons, people calling from an empty 30 story high rise apartment, not common. people calling from a 2 or 3 story apartment building, dozens of time, daily. as a matter of fact its almost a daily occurrence that we have to waste precious minutes having our dispatchers locate family members or known associates of a caller and contact them to get better / updated location information for a caller because they are in peril and we cant locate them within a complex and the caller is in a life threatening situation.

A specific situation that took place not too long ago, we had a 4 year old call 911 on moms cell phone from inside their apartment because mom was unresponsive from diabetic emergency. The address on the cell phone was a different location and the only details the caller could give us was that they lived upstairs and that he could see the swimming pool out the window. This was a 4 story apartment complex with over 20 building and over 2000 units with 4 swimming pools. An additional 5 engine companies and 10 police officers were dispatched to assist in the search of the complex. In the end the way we located the women was our keen thinking call taker / dispatcher talked the young child in to taking a blow up turtle floaty toy that they had for swimming and placing it in the hallway in front of the door of their apartment. Once the child placed the toy outside the door, the apartment was located within minutes and mom was able to receive the life saving treatment she so desperately needed. her blood sugar was 13, normal is 80 to 100, below 40+/- you cannot maintain consciousness. She in a state where irreversible damage would start to occur if it hadn't already. Fortunately for her she had a very brave and very smart 4 year old who saved her life that day. I was the paramedic who started the IV on her and administered D50 to raise her blood sugar. She brought her child to our station about a month later to meet all of us and to say thank you.

This is just one situation that took place. I could type a book of situations that i have first hand knowledge of and was involved in where better tracking / location information would have greatly reduced our patient contact time. Not all of these situations have a happy ending. In reality happy endings are the exception not the norm.

So speaking as an emergency responder who just happens to know a little about technology, I can say yes this is very much needed.

What your saying is that E911 doesn't work and GPS is not good enough or is not always utilized. I defer to your 1st hand experience on this matter. I just assumed it was part of the E911 protocol.

I really couldn't care if it interferes with somebody's wireless internet service. Emergency services should always take priority.

Not arguing the importance of emergency services, but if its that critical, it should be in its own licensed band. What is curious is what's the technical reason for 900Mhz. Why not white space in the UHF area of TV? That's my question. That is never fully explained. Previous articles make it sound like GPS receivers just need a software update. Which is odd.. GPS is 1.2 and 1.5 GHz...

I dont understand why these people couldn't be give a licensed band of spectrum. Why did they have to stomp all over the 900 Mhz band? This is ridiculous, if they stomped on the Cellular band the telco's would be up and arms and the FCC would say no.

this also seems to be solution looking for a problem to solve. But because it is "public safety" no one looks at the data and really ask do we need this? How many people call 911 (alone) in an empty high rise location that is not their own apartment? seriously GPS is not good enough? We cant put GPS repeaters in these buildings? No one is asking the question, how can we solve this problem without compromising the integrity of the spectrum.

900mhz is free to (ab)use. Finding and giving away a similar sized block of licensed spectrum (part of the 600mhz assuming they can pry it away from the TV people?) would cost the govt the hundreds of millions of dollars they wouldn't get from auctioning it to the phone companies. NTM the same phone companies howling about not being allowed to buy it for more data service.

I really couldn't care if it interferes with somebody's wireless internet service. Emergency services should always take priority.

Not arguing the importance of emergency services, but if its that critical, it should be in its own licensed band. What is curious is what's the technical reason for 900Mhz. Why not white space in the UHF area of TV? That's my question. That is never fully explained. Previous articles make it sound like GPS receivers just need a software update. Which is odd.. GPS is 1.2 and 1.5 GHz...

white space would result in it being scattered over a wide number of frequencies (depending on where the local TV stations are); this would make implementation on the phone side more difficult.

And that's assuming it's even possible at all. Transmitters powerful enough to be detected from multiple miles away are a much larger potential interference source than your cordless microphone; or even your extra wifi network. Are the whitespaces in built up areas large enough to fit something like this in without jamming adjacent TV service.

I dont understand why these people couldn't be give a licensed band of spectrum. Why did they have to stomp all over the 900 Mhz band? This is ridiculous, if they stomped on the Cellular band the telco's would be up and arms and the FCC would say no.

They are licensing a chunk of the band, 904-909.75MHz and 919.75-928MHz, on a Secondary basis. The system will only use 4MHz of that license chunk so it's unfair to say they're stomping all over the band. It's rather unlikely they'll cause any unlicensed users noticeable harm and I'm rather surprised the FCC cares enough about the Part 15 users, that have such a small chance of being interfered to begin with in this case, that there's a number to call to complain.

If folks really want to get their panties in a bunch about interference on this band they should be bitching about those "smart" power meters throwing RFI all over the band.

They are licensing a chunk of the band, 904-909.75MHz and 919.75-928MHz, on a Secondary basis. The system will only use 4MHz of that license chunk so it's unfair to say they're stomping all over the band. .

Your right, it was unfair to say they are stomping all over the band. the Greater Internet FWT was strong when I pounded out that diatribe. Ars tends to be a good community where you can ask technical questions. i didn't mean to troll.

so some further research that I have done shows that the 902 - 928 Mhz band has a couple of catagory of licenses

So it summary it looks like this spectrum was carved out for this purpose anyways at least that what the categories seem to imply. It would seem that the ISM devices are the ones suppose to be the secondary operators and not the other-way around.

so while they will loose some bandwidth, it seems to be part of the deal and understanding of using that band.

Again, I apologize for previous comments. I was really being an ignoramus.

Ya, when my sister buys a baby monitor and she gets interference, she'll know to call the FCC's 1-800 hotline number? I think she'll just take it back to Costco and tell them it doesn't work. Or she'll throw it out thinking it broke.

But because it is "public safety" no one looks at the data and really ask do we need this?

Being a Paramedic in one of the nations largest metropolitan areas for over 12 years i can say unequivocally, astoundingly and absolutely YES!

Quote:

How many people call 911 (alone) in an empty high rise location that is not their own apartment? seriously GPS is not good enough? We cant put GPS repeaters in these buildings?

People calling from locations thats not their own doesn't matter, people use different addresses for all sorts of reasons, people calling from an empty 30 story high rise apartment, not common. people calling from a 2 or 3 story apartment building, dozens of time, daily. as a matter of fact its almost a daily occurrence that we have to waste precious minutes having our dispatchers locate family members or known associates of a caller and contact them to get better / updated location information for a caller because they are in peril and we cant locate them within a complex and the caller is in a life threatening situation.

A specific situation that took place not too long ago, we had a 4 year old call 911 on moms cell phone from inside their apartment because mom was unresponsive from diabetic emergency. The address on the cell phone was a different location and the only details the caller could give us was that they lived upstairs and that he could see the swimming pool out the window. This was a 4 story apartment complex with over 20 building and over 2000 units with 4 swimming pools. An additional 5 engine companies and 10 police officers were dispatched to assist in the search of the complex. In the end the way we located the women was our keen thinking call taker / dispatcher talked the young child in to taking a blow up turtle floaty toy that they had for swimming and placing it in the hallway in front of the door of their apartment. Once the child placed the toy outside the door, the apartment was located within minutes and mom was able to receive the life saving treatment she so desperately needed. her blood sugar was 13, normal is 80 to 100, below 40+/- you cannot maintain consciousness. She in a state where irreversible damage would start to occur if it hadn't already. Fortunately for her she had a very brave and very smart 4 year old who saved her life that day. I was the paramedic who started the IV on her and administered D50 to raise her blood sugar. She brought her child to our station about a month later to meet all of us and to say thank you.

This is just one situation that took place. I could type a book of situations that i have first hand knowledge of and was involved in where better tracking / location information would have greatly reduced our patient contact time. Not all of these situations have a happy ending. In reality happy endings are the exception not the norm.

So speaking as an emergency responder who just happens to know a little about technology, I can say yes this is very much needed.

As someone who wrote a lot of location systems for emergency service command and control, this system isn't going to be particularly useful.

Sure, you need to know exactly where to locate the incident, but.... first you need to know where it is, and cell phone signals are good for that as you can send the responder unit in the general direction of the call and firm up the exact location afterwards - this saves a fair bit of time (especially as my systems could send the nearest unit the location before the calltaker has even picked up the call - lets them know which way to point the ambulance in case the call an emergency). note that the location is approximate anyway, i used to see a radius of about 100m for many mobile call locations. For fixed line its easier as you can get the address of the caller, but that can depend on a few factors - including some office worker entering the address incorrectly (or,most usually, with garbage characters in there)

Finding the location after that can depend on all manner of circumstances. You might need to go round the back of the building to get access, you might need a totally different entry point - in a mall for example, you are not going to be able to park next to a patient, you're going to have to find the closest entrance and run the rest of the way, all of this is down to the calltaker obtaining the info from the caller.

And then there's a lot of calls where the caller is not the patient - I know calls where people have phoned in to say their relative needs help, several hundred miles away. No point sending an ambulance to the caller in these situations.

So unless we have a GPS position, this kind of assist isn't going to provide much extra help. I'm sure Navtech will be very happy to sell it for loads of money - think of all the children you'd be putting at risk if you don't buy it.

What your saying is that E911 doesn't work and GPS is not good enough or is not always utilized. I defer to your 1st hand experience on this matter. I just assumed it was part of the E911 protocol.

I'm a career 911 dispatcher/supervisor and now working for a 911 agency to help migrate the legacy E911 equipment over to an IP-based system (so-called "Next Generation 911"). The current 911 system was designed over 40 years ago. The last major enhancements to the infrastructure were in the late 70's/early 80's with the implementation of "enhanced 911", which introduced selective routing. Basically when you call from a landline phone, it compares your number to a database that contains your billing address and a number that tells the telco's selective router which 911 center gets your call. The enhancements to 911 in the last 15 years for wireless were basically done in such a way as to utilize the existing phone company equipment. The biggest difference between landline and wireless 911 to a dispatcher is the quality of the location info. The method by which that routing number (ESN) gets assigned to the call is different, but it still uses essentially the same path to get to the 911 center.

911 has become a mobile service. In most centers, wireless calls usually make up somewhere in the vicinity of 70-80% of incoming 911. This trend toward wireless shows no sign of slowing, especially with many abandoning their landline altogether. The location accuracy standards that the FCC developed during the initial rollout of wireless 911 only applied to outdoor calls. They've been revised (tightened) since then, but indoor location accuracy has yet to be formally addressed, and testing, though mandated, has up until very recently been averaged out across wireless company customer bases (not broken down by individual cities). GPS is great, but the signal is too weak to penetrate most buildings, especially high rises. I'm not advocating for any specific solution here, but NextNav seems to be capable of providing the best results thusfar based on what I've seen of the testing that's available.

Like any technology, the potential for abuse is there, no doubt. Beyond civil liberty concerns, I'm sure NextNav is using the public safety argument to advance what could potentially be a very lucrative service for them in targeting advertising for people in shopping malls and many other uses. Regardless, the quality of location accuracy is mediocre at best for people calling 911 and presents very real problems every single day for 911 dispatchers across the country.

There are other components necessary to make this indoor location accuracy work. the dispatching software needs to be able to make use of elevation in addition to XY. The FCC mandating indoor location accuracy is probably the only route to making the wireless companies send it to 911. I have to agree that spectrum issues are a concern, but 900 is a hot mess already as others have pointed out, and at a certain level, 911 folks will take whatever they can get.

I really couldn't care if it interferes with somebody's wireless internet service. Emergency services should always take priority.

In the broadest strokes, sure. But there are other, better ways to support emergency services without disrupting equipment used in a huge array of other well-established applications.

Moreover, emergency services already have a number of bands licensed for their exclusive use. In those bands, emergency services absolutely do come first.

This case is not a battle between emergency services and wifi for Facebook. It's a battle of good spectrum conservation in the interest of the public, against reckless mismanagement of wireless frequency allocations in the interest of private concerns.

There are other components necessary to make this indoor location accuracy work. the dispatching software needs to be able to make use of elevation in addition to XY. The FCC mandating indoor location accuracy is probably the only route to making the wireless companies send it to 911. I have to agree that spectrum issues are a concern, but 900 is a hot mess already as others have pointed out, and at a certain level, 911 folks will take whatever they can get.

No doubt, locating mobile callers is a major problem for all the reasons you describe. I'm sure 911 operators will take what they can get in the way of assistance. I certainly wouldn't advocate letting perfection get in the way of good-enough either.

But I do think this problem calls for a concerted effort between 911 services and mobile service providers, rather than this weird approach. You probably know as well as anyone that changes are slow to come to services like 911, and so it seems to me the benefits of the proposed system will take years to manifest, by which point the technology will be yet again obsolete. It's not like everyone's going to ditch their phones overnight. Even if they did, how long will it take for call centers to install this proprietary equipment?

Maybe this will be the impetus to get a more permanent, comprehensive solution developed and established. But you can't just throw solutions at a problem on the grounds that a solution is desperately needed.

I know from my own experience that management rarely agrees, but desperation in my view calls for clear-minded deliberation and cooperation, not a careless barrage of temporary fixes.

This could have been rolled into the 700mhz block D that never sold, tie it into a requirement that it gets integrated for use with the next gen public safety spectrum so that it would be part of it, I imagine they would like to know where there people are too, and don't use any of block D for anything other than public safety. It would have better penetration, no possibility of interference, and the spectrum is just going to sit fallow anyway until some congress person comes up with a bill removing the public safety strings so Verizon or AT&T can buy it up and sit on it. Instead of letting that happen, put it to use now so that can't happen.

You could even do a bid not for the spectrum but for the right to be a provider of the service in a given region, this way no one company has a monopoly on providing this service nationwide.

Instead we will let that spectrum sit fallow until some company agrees to buy it for pennies to make many dollars from and this service gets put right into a spectrum already in significant use. FCC planning at its finest.

This could have been rolled into the 700mhz block D that never sold, tie it into a requirement that it gets integrated for use with the next gen public safety spectrum so that it would be part of it, I imagine they would like to know where there people are too, and don't use any of block D for anything other than public safety. It would have better penetration, no possibility of interference, and the spectrum is just going to sit fallow anyway until some congress person comes up with a bill removing the public safety strings so Verizon or AT&T can buy it up and sit on it. Instead of letting that happen, put it to use now so that can't happen.

You could even do a bid not for the spectrum but for the right to be a provider of the service in a given region, this way no one company has a monopoly on providing this service nationwide.

Instead we will let that spectrum sit fallow until some company agrees to buy it for pennies to make many dollars from and this service gets put right into a spectrum already in significant use. FCC planning at its finest.

I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only person who thought of the D block. That whole situation is a shame, particularly since that spectrum is ideal, and already designated for public safety uses.

I don't think that it's entirely the FCC's fault here, though. While they've been consistently poor at providing rational spectrum policy recently, if they were to take actions that would rationalize that policy congress would jump on their case right after the industry heavyweights (particularly cell companies) sued them to a standstill. Given those political realities, it's no surprise the the FCC plays a pretty limited role in longer-term/larger-scale planning and policy-shaping. It still sucks, though.

"NextNav's enhanced 911 location service operates on the same chunk of spectrum as wireless Internet Service Providers, smart meters, toll readers like EZ-Pass, baby monitors, and more."

So, do the existing technologies conflict with one another? If someone has a smart meter, a baby monitor and wireless internet service in the house, do they work?

They might, or might not, depending on the particular meter, monitor, and WISP gear, their relative locations, the locations of other items that might affect their emissions, and the quality of the power provided to each.

Part 15 devices really cannot be relied upon to do anything consistent from an RFI standpoint, which is why they, and unlicensed spectrum, cannot be relied upon for critical uses.

You mean someone having a heart attack who dials 911 from their desktop phone within Mega Corp., on the company PBX, can be immediately located without 3rd party intervention? I don't think so. The wolf has donned the sheep's clothing again and I wouldn't be surprised if these two companies weren't funded by our government. People need to start looking at the overall puzzle and not just the individual pieces. Alone, this piece looks innocuous enough, as it "save lives", but when coupled to other pieces, it is starting to look like all privacy and anonymity will not be allowed. As we play the dirge for our rights being murdered, and we stand in line at the local DHS Neighborhood Security Center to get our ID implants, some of us will remember what it was like to be free and will cry. The sad thing, and the most frightening, is that our kids won't know for what we cry about.

This could have been rolled into the 700mhz block D that never sold, tie it into a requirement that it gets integrated for use with the next gen public safety spectrum so that it would be part of it, I imagine they would like to know where there people are too, and don't use any of block D for anything other than public safety. It would have better penetration, no possibility of interference, and the spectrum is just going to sit fallow anyway until some congress person comes up with a bill removing the public safety strings so Verizon or AT&T can buy it up and sit on it. Instead of letting that happen, put it to use now so that can't happen.

You could even do a bid not for the spectrum but for the right to be a provider of the service in a given region, this way no one company has a monopoly on providing this service nationwide.

Instead we will let that spectrum sit fallow until some company agrees to buy it for pennies to make many dollars from and this service gets put right into a spectrum already in significant use. FCC planning at its finest.

I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only person who thought of the D block. That whole situation is a shame, particularly since that spectrum is ideal, and already designated for public safety uses.

I don't think that it's entirely the FCC's fault here, though. While they've been consistently poor at providing rational spectrum policy recently, if they were to take actions that would rationalize that policy congress would jump on their case right after the industry heavyweights (particularly cell companies) sued them to a standstill. Given those political realities, it's no surprise the the FCC plays a pretty limited role in longer-term/larger-scale planning and policy-shaping. It still sucks, though.

Totally agree, the FCC gets spanked repeatedly by congress for trying to do its job so I don't doubt they are shy of doing anything that would make congress come after it and spank it some more. Sadly this is one of those things that congress does not understand either, so trying to get legislation through that will allow the FCC to do this is unlikely to happen. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I only wish the FCC would fight a bit. Selling spectrum has never been a good deal for the public, but it has dollar signs written all over it for wireless companies. It's kind of like a loan shark deal, they give us a billion for some spectrum and we pay them billions for years after in order to use it.

911 Operators may not have access to it now but if i keep my wifi turned on via my android (and not using it) it almost always knows exactly where i am in a building when i open up google maps. (Useful inside stores)

Will this technology always be on during a 911 call or will it be kicked on in the event that a person is unable to respond? Also would there be reason to leave it on after the caller has been located?

Way to go FCC. As a licensed amateur radio operator I have secondary privileges on the 900Mhz band, which means I must accept interference from other primary licensed operators but my interfere with unlicensed operators like baby monitors and such.

We operate high power television repeaters in the 900MHz band and they take 6MHz of bandwidth. With only 27Mhz of total bandwidth I can see some problems cropping up. Things like baby monitors generally don't have issues with but this tech may in fact have issues with our operations. Wonderful.

Will this technology always be on during a 911 call or will it be kicked on in the event that a person is unable to respond? Also would there be reason to leave it on after the caller has been located?

Edit- Also! How long does it take to find someone?

As I understand it, these transmitters will be operating continuously. Phones will continually receive the signals, and continually update their location.

Sometimes I think the really well-informed contributors here should drop any pretense of taking this in stride (and possibly chuckling at the inanity of it all) and just say/write/type/admit, "Ok, now WE are scared too." Or, aren't you? You would know.

By not acting very scared or angry, I'm concerned that a wrong signal is being transmitted by/from the cognoscenti to the rest of their presumably beloved compatriots. I'm a techie too, but I'm older and lack the degrees and more recent educations that a great many others here seem to have. But I do believe that totalitarianism is the most natural unchecked course for an over-populated, over-religious, finite-sized (and still utterly irreplaceable) world, that happens to contain massive and persistent imbalances of power, based largely upon immutable geographies and hard-to-modify cultures and behaviors.

I think Alarmism might have a rightful place in a semi-stable society that wishes to become more stable. These aren't just tech issues, but AT isn't just a tech publication.